> Joshua Megerman wrote: >> On Saturday 23 February 2008 01:55:14 pm Nick Bright wrote: >>> While the qmail sources are available, it is not GPL. It's my >>> understanding that the way qmail is licensed specifically forbids >>> repackaging. >>> >> Um, no. As the original poster stated qmail is now in the public >> domain, >> which means there is not only no restrictions to its distribution, >> there's >> not even any license anymore. > > Well, that is excellent. I was not aware that it had been placed into > the public domain. > > Perhaps now someone could get a project together with some traction to > integrate all of the best patches into qmail and make a technologically > recent package that doesn't have to have 15 patches applied to get > anything resembling a recent feature set.
Are you aware of the netqmail project or Bill Shupp's qmail toaster project? Easily googled if you weren't. > > I for one would love to see inter7 take the lead on such a project, as > they have a proven track record and as far as I can tell, know qmail > quite well. > >> >> And please try not to top-post :) > > I'll never understand why people don't like top posting. I find it > easier to read, but lets not get OT on this; I'm sure it's been argued > about before. > >> >> Josh > > > > !DSPAM:47c4001f310541999914656!
